DUI & IRS Recent Cases Cases

Mr. H. had come to see our office after another prominent impaired driving lawyer had indicated that he had an unwinnable case. After consuming 12 pints of beer during a workday at a downtown patio, Mr. H. made the unfortunate decision to drive home. He was stopped for speeding on Stony Trail and the officer requested a roadside breath sample. Mr. H. declined and the officer placed him under arrest for refusing to provide a breath sample. After meticulously reviewing the disclosure material Mr. Wyman set the matter down for trial and filed written argument alleging that the officer violated our client’s section 10(b) right to counsel. At trial, after winning this argument Crown Counsel invited an acquittal.

Mr. P was a successful businessman in rural Alberta. Following a heated argument with his wife he went for a drive to cool down. He was pulled over by a local sheriff for a traffic violation. The sheriff detected an odor of alcohol and requested that RCMP attend. Once on scene, Mr. P conducted a roadside breath test which he failed. He was then taken back to the RCMP detachment where he was to provide an evidentiary breath sample which he refused. At trial Mr. Wyman filed a constitutional argument alleging that the officer should not have relied upon the “fail” result issued by the screening device as she had failed to allow for the dissipation of mouth alcohol attributable to client chewing gum immediately prior to the test being conducted. It was also argued that the officer violated the client’s section 10(b) right to Counsel in that the client made numerous ambiguous statements regarding speaking to a lawyer at another time. The arguments were successful and the presiding judge dismissed the case against our client.

Our client was found sleeping in his vehicle on a roadway close to Airdrie. When officers arrived, they detected an odor of alcohol and proceeded in an impaired driving investigation. The client was ultimately arrested and taken to the local RCMP detachment for breath testing. After blowing more than twice the legal limit Mr. C. wanted nothing more than to plead guilty and get the matter resolved. After speaking with our office M. took our advice and proceeded to trial. At trial Mr. Wyman argued that the officer had violated our client’s section 10(b) right to counsel. The assigned judge took the same view and acquitted our client of the offences charged.

Mr. J. retained our services after being charged with impaired operation after he was in a significant collision in Airdrie. When police attended the scene, he was immediately placed under arrest and brought back to the RCMP detachment for breath samples. At the station the breath samples were more than 3 times the legal limit. After reviewing the disclosure material, it became evident that it was a strong Crown case. As such all alternatives were explored. Mr. Wyman ultimately coordinated a stay with an acclaimed residential treatment facility here in the province. After completing the treatment plan associated with this facility Mr. J. was able to avoid a criminal conviction.

Mr. B. retained our office to represent him at trial in Strathmore. The charges were impaired operation and the client had been pulled over on his way home from work. Little did he know that an ex of his had contacted the police and reported him as a suspected impaired driver. A few kilometers from his house a traffic stop was conducted and a roadside breath test requested. A failure resulted and the client was placed under arrest. Our office filed a constitutional argument alleging that the officer improperly relied upon the fail reading on the roadside. The argument was a successful one and the client walked out of the courthouse without a criminal record.

Mr. B was a University student with no criminal record. After a night out with friends he was leaving the establishment’s parking lot when he collided with a vehicle. Police attended and an arrest for impaired driving followed. After reviewing the Crown disclosure, Mr. Wyman identified multiple constitutional arguments in relation to the fashion that the officers had conducted their investigation. At trial these arguments carried the day and the client left the courthouse with his absence of a criminal record intact.